in  South  Africa 


By  REV.  LEWIS  GROUT 


THIRD  EDITION 


'•"!  i 

nr 


FOR  SALE  BY  CLAPP  &  JONES  AND  W.  R.  GEDDIS,  BRATTLEBORO,  VT., 

AT  TEN  CENTS  PER  COPY. 


The  Boer  and  the  Briton  in 
South  Africa 


OR 

THE  PRESENT  WAR  IN  ITS  HISTORICAL 
AND  MORAL  BEARINGS 


A  Paper  Read  at  a  Meeting  of  the  Brattleboro  Professional  Club, 

November  14,  1899 

Bv  the  Rev,  Lewis  Grout 

For  Fifteen  Years  a  Missionary  in  Natal.  Author  of  “Zulu- 
Land,”  a  “Zulu  Grammar,”  and  Other 
African  Works 

THIRD  EDITION 


BRATTLEBORO,  VT.  : 

THE  PHCENIX  JOB  PRINTING  OFFICE 
1900 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2018  with  funding  from 
Columbia  University  Libraries 


https://archive.org/details/boerbritoninsoutOOgrou 


> 


Rev  Lewis  Grout. 


A  PREFATORY  REMARK  IN  THE  SECOND  EDITION. 


The  large  “Reformer"  edition  of  this  work  was  so  soon  exhausted,  and 
so  many  have  been  the  kindly  words  that  have  come  to  the  writer  from  dis¬ 
tinguished  men  at  home  and  abroad  in  respect  to  it,  that  the  author  is 
encouraged  to  heed  an  urgent  call  for  a  second  edition,  hoping  the  facts 
and  thoughts  it  contains  maf’  have  a  still  wider  circulation. 

West  Brattleboro,  Vt.  , 

February,  1900. 


PREFACE  TO  THE  THIRD  EDITION. 


It  speaks  well  for  the  favor  with  which  this  work  is  meeting  that  a  third 
edition  is  called  for  in  less  than  a  month  from  the  time  the  second  was 
issued. 

The  following  are  some  of  the  good  words  that  have  come  to  the  author 
in  regard  to  it: — 

“Your  address  is  a  model  in  its  language  and  mode  of  treatment.” — 
Rev.  Charles  R.  Bliss,  ex-Secretary  N.  W.  Ed.  Commission. 

“Your  long  experience  in  Natal  gives  you  an  unusual  opportunity  of 
speaking  with  authority  on  some  of  the  questions  of  the  day.” — Dr.  Arthur 
T.  Hadley ,  President  of  Yale  University. 

“  Your  remarkably  able,  clear  and  exhaustive  article  leaves  nothing  to  be 
desired.” — Prof.  C.  M.  Des  Islets,  Western  University,  Pa. 

“  One  of  the  clearest,  justest  and  most  unanswerable  presentations  of  the 
case  which  I  have  read.” — Edwin  D.  Mead,  Editor  New  England  Maga¬ 
zine. 

“In  a  supplementary  chapter  Mr.  Grout  answers  effectively  and  from 
personal  knowledge  some  of  the  false  statements  regarding  the  Boers  which 
are  most  frequently  circulated.” — Boston  Journal. 


6 


“Rev.  Mr.  Grout,  it  is  apparent,  speaks  with  the  authority  of  one  who  is 
familiar  with  the  subject  from  observation  on  the  ground  itself.  His  paper 
was  very  able.  That  Dr.  Grout  sides  with  the  Boers  as  against  England 
is  noteworthy,  inasmuch  as  he  lived  in  the  missionary  atmosphere  when  in 
South  Africa.  H  is  answer  to  the  charge  that  the  Boers  maintain  a  system 
of  virtual  slavery  of  the  blacks  and  want  to  make  slavery  the  comer-stone 
of  their  republic  was  as  convincing  as  could  be  desired. — Springfield 
Republican. 

“  I  thank  you  warmly  for  sending  me  your  valuable  lecture  on  Transvaal 
history  and  the  war.  I  am  quite  at  one  with  you  in  reprobating  the  policy 
of  provocation  and  exasperation  pursued  .  .  .*  .  to  make  war  inevitable.” 
Rev.  J.  Hirst  Ho/lowell,  D.  I). ,  England. 

“  I  am  so  glad  that  you  espouse  so  heroically  the  cause  of  the  oppressed 
and  hounded  Boers.” — Dr.  G.  J.  Kollen ,  President  Hope  College,  Michi¬ 
gan. 


“I  am  profoundly  grateful  to  you  for  sending  me  a  copy  of  your  pam¬ 
phlet . I  wish  it  could  be  read  by  every  newspaper  editor  in  the  coun¬ 

try.” — Rev.  James  L.  Barton ,  D.  D.,  Cor.  Sec.  A.  B.  C.  F.  M. 

“  The  complete  harmony  between  your  address  and  my  lectures  is  not 
only  interesting,  but  it  makes  much  for  the  truth  and  accuracy  of  each  that 
neither  author  had  any  knowledge  of  the  other,  but  wr.ote  or  spoke  each 
from  his  own  independent  and  different  standpoint.” — Hon.  George  F. 
Hollis ,  late  U.  S.  Consul  at  Cape  Town  and  Minister  Plenipotentiary  for 
the  Orange  Free  State. 

LEWIS  GROUT. 

West  Brattleboro,  Vt., 


March,  1900. 


I'HE  BOER  AND  THE  BRITON. 


THE  THREE  GREAT  TREKS  OF  THE  BOERS  SEEKING  LIBERTY  AND 

independence— England’s  repeated  covenants  with  them, 

AS  OFTEN  FOLLOWED  BY  HIGH-HANDED  VIOLATION - THE 

ABSOLUTE  BASELESSNESS  OF  THE  CHARGES  AND  COM¬ 
PLAINTS  MADE  TO  JUSTIFY  THE  WAR - THE  SUB¬ 

LIME  OATH  OF  RESISTANCE  BY  THE  PEOPLE 
WHO  THE  MOST  OF  ANY  ON  EARTH 
RESEMBLE  IN  A  MODERNIZED 
WAY  OUR  PILGRIM 
FATHERS. 


It  was  about  the  middle  of  the  seventeenth  century,  April, 
1652,  that  the  Dutch  East  Indian  Company,  seeing  what  a  good 
replenishing  station  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope  would  make  for 
ships  plying  between  Europe  and  the  East,  sent  a  colony  of  sol¬ 
diers  and  others  there  to  build  a  fort  and  plant  a  garden  on 
lands  which,  a  year  previous,  one  of  their  number,  Van  Rie- 
beck.  a  ship- wrecked  merchant,  had  purchased  of  the  natives 
for  50,000  guilders — a  big  sum,  as  compared  with  the  sixty 
guilders  originally  paid  for  Manhattan  Island.  The  little  colony 
had  many  things  to  contend  with,  yet  went  on  to  prosper.  At 
the  end  of  six  years  it  numbered  360  souls.  Between  the  years 
1685  and  1690  about  300  Huguenots,  men,  women,  and  chil¬ 
dren,  of  whom  France  was  not  worthy,  found  their  way  to  the 
Cape.  From  these 

“  Pilgrim  fathers,  noblest  blood  of  sunny  France, 

Broad-browed  men  of  free-born  spirit,  lighted  with  the  eagle  glance,” 

came  some  of  the  most  valuable  elements  of  the  white  race  in 
South  Africa. 

As  the  colony  advanced  in  age  and  the  government  in  strength, 
they  pushed  the  natives  back,  and  reduced  some  of  them  to  the 


8 


condition  of  serfs,  or  “apprentices,”  as  they  called  them,  and, 
step  by  step,  extended  their  jurisdiction  in  various  directions, 
till,  at  the  end  of  the  first  century,  they  had  possession  of  an 
area  of  more  than  100,000  square  miles  of  territory.  Near  the 
close  of  the  eighteenth  century,  1795,  the  English  captured  the 
Cape,  but  in  1802  restored  it  again  to  the  Dutch.  In  1806  the 
English  took  it  again,  though  not  without  a  desperate  resist¬ 
ance,  and  from  that  time  to  the  present  it  has  remained  in  their 
possession. 

The  “Boers,”  as  these  Dutch  and  Huguenot  people  came  to 
be  called,  that  is,  farmers,  or  tillers  of  the  soil,  as  the  word 
means  in  Dutch,  could  never  forgive  the  English  for  taking 
from  them  what  they  claimed  as  their  own  country;  and,  as  the 
years  went  on,  many  were  the  times,  and  ways,  and  causes  of 
collision  and  strife  between  them  and  their  captors.  Under  their 
own  rule,  when  cattle  were  stolen  from  them  by  the  natives, 
they  went  out  in  a  commando,  or  armed  force,  and  recovered 
an  equivalent;  under  English  rule  this  was  not  allowed;  upon 
which  the  Dutchman  said,  it  was  a  hard  case  to  pay  heavy  taxes 
for  protection,  and  then  get  neither  protection  from  the  gov¬ 
ernment,  nor  permission  to  protect  themselves.  But  the  crown¬ 
ing  act  of  offence  was  when,  in  1833-1837,  the  British  govern¬ 
ment  took  from  them  their  so-called  “apprentices,”  or  slaves, 
and  allowed  them  only  about  thirty-five  pounds  per  head  as  com¬ 
pensation  for  their  loss ;  very  little  or  nothing  of  which  ever 
reached  many,  even  of  those  who  were  willing  to  receive  it, 
from  the  fact  that  their  claims  were  to  be  paid  in  London.  The 
pastoral  portion  of  the  Boers  had  never  acquiesced  in  English 
rule,  and  their  disgust  at  these  and  other  grievances  now 
determined  many  of  them  to  throw  up  their  claim  and  quit  the 
colony.  And  now  it  was  that  6,000  stout,  indignant  Dutch¬ 
men,  heads  of  large  households,  gave  up  their  farms,  gathered 
up  their  more  valuable  effects  of  a  portable  character,  took  their 
families,  cattle,  sheep,  horses,  their  Bibles,  and  their  old  rifles, 
inspanned  the  usual  twelve  or  fourteen  oxen  into  each  of  their 
6,000  big  tented  wagons,  called  the  ugliest  ox  in  the  team 
“England,”  set  their  faces  to  the  northward,  and  started  for  a 


9 


land  of  freedom.  Coiping  to  the  Orange  River,  they  crossed 
over  and  took  up  their  abode  where  some  of  their  kith  and  kin 
had  already  settled,  and  were  living  in  peace  by  virtue  of  agree¬ 
ments  they  had  made  with  the  few  natives  they  found  there. 
Those  few  natives,  each  individual  of  whom  was  “laying  claim 
to  a  tract  of  land  of  enormous  extent,”  were  quite  willing  to 
turn  their  claims  to  account  by  selling  or  leasing  the  ground  at 
a  very  low  rate,  and  moving  to  other  places;  and  so  it  was  that 
all  parties  were  satisfied. 

Here,  beyond  the  limits  of  British  rule,  a  portion  of  the  Boers 
remained,  and  eventually  (1846)  formed  a  kind  of  patriarchal 
commonwealth,  under  the  name  of  Orange  Free  State.  But 
after  some  ten  years  of  prosperous  autonomy  they  were  doomed 
to  a  bittter  experience,  when,  in  1848,  the  Cape  colonial  govern¬ 
ment  came  in  and  took  upon  itself  to  change  the  name  of  the 
“Orange  Free  State”  to  the  “Orange  River  Sovereignty,”  and 
by  a  stroke  of  the  pen  declared  and  proclaimed  it  annexed  to 
the  Cape  Colony,  under  the  pretext  of  protecting  the  savage 
Griquas  from  encroachments  on  their  territory  by  these  new 
neighbors.  The  Boers  took  up  arms  and  made  an  obstinate 
resistance,  but  after  much  hard  fighting  they  were  defeated. 
Upon  this  the  majority  of  them  again  migrated  under  their  old 
leader,  Pretorius,  to  the  north  of  the  Vaal  river,  the  recognized 
border  of  the  Orange  Free  State,  where,  with  others,  they 
eventually  organized  the  Transvaal  republic;  while  others,  to 
the  number  of  12,000,  without  abating  aught  of  their  hostility 
toward  their  conquerors,  still  continued  their  abode  in  the 
Orange  river  country,  evidently  believing  that  the  end  was  not 
yet. 

After  four  years  of  bitter  experience,  strife,  waste  of  life  and 
treasure,  among  and  between  the  English,  the  Dutch  and  native 
tribes,  especially  when  heavy  bills  for  inglorious  conquests 
began  to  come  in  to  the  home  treasury  of  the  former,  Great 
Britain  began  to  think  she  was  engaged  in  a  bad  cause  and  had 
better  be  trying  to  get  out  of  it.  Accordingly,  at  a  special 
gathering,  generally  called  “The  Sand  River  Convention,” 
held  in  the  Sovereignty,  January  17,  1852,  through  authorized 


IO 


representatives  of  the  British  government  in  consultation  with 
“the  emigrant  farmers  beyond  the  Vaal  river,”  Her  Majesty, 
the  Queen,  promised  “in  the  fullest  manner  to  guarantee  to 
the  Boers  of  the  Transvaal  their  future  independence  and  the 
right  to  manage  their  own  affairs,  and  to  govern  themselves  by 
their  own  laws,  without  any  interference  on  the  part  of  the 
British  government,”  distinctly  pledging  her  word  also,  that 
“no  encroachment  shall  be  made  by  her  government  on  the 
territory  beyond,  to  the  north  of  the  Vaal  river,”  all  of  which 
was  duly  ratified  and  sanctioned  by  the  proper  authorities  of 
her  government.  A  similar  course  was  adopted  at  a  similar 
convention  two  years  later,  February  23,  1854,  by  the  abandon¬ 
ment  and  renunciation  of  British  dominion  over  the  Orange 
Free  State,  or  sovereignty,  “freeing  the  inhabitants  of  the 
territory  between  the  Orange  and  Vaal  rivers  from  all  allegiance 
to  the  British  crown,  and  declaring  them  a  free  and  independ¬ 
ent  people,  and  the  government  thenceforth  a  free  and  inde¬ 
pendent  government.”  In  each  case,  the  Boers  on  their  part 
undertook  that  no  slavery  should  be  permitted  or  practised  in 
their  country. 

But  in  1865  a  war  between  the  Orange  Free  State  and  the 
Basutos  was  made  the  occasion  of  another  intervention  by  the 
British  in  direct  violation,  as  Froude  declared,  of  the  treaties 
just  mentioned.  Bad  blood  was  stirred  up  by  it;  but  the  former 
treaty  was  renewed  in  1869,  with  fresh  assurances  that  it  should 
henceforth  be  observed.  But  then  came  the  discovery  of  rich 
diamond  fields,  north  of  the  Orange  river,  in  territory  claimed 
as  belonging  to  the  Orange  Free  State,  and  which  the  British 
themselves  had  so  regarded  during  their  occupation  of  that  coun¬ 
try.  A  great  rush  of  population  to  the  new  diggings  followed, 
and  then  Great  Britain  discovered  that  the  territory  belonged 
not  to  the  Orange  Free  State,  but  to  a  Griqua  chief,  who  had 
formerly  been  an  ally  of  the  English;  and  so,  in  October, 
1871,  she  took  possession,  handed  over  to  the  Griqua  chief  the 
poorest  tenth  part  of  the  country,  and  made  a  new  British  colony, 
Kimberley,  of  the  remainder — an  area  of  some  17,000  square 
miles. 


Turning-  back  now  to  the  time  when  the  Boers  left  the 
Cape  Colony  and  crossed  the  Orange  river,  we  find  that  in  1837 
and  1838,  a  portion  of  them,  some  900  strong,  having  halted  for 
a  time  at  what  eventually  became  the  Orange  Free  State, 
inspanned  their  big  wagons  again,  took  their  families,  cattle, 
and  other  effects,  followed  up  the  Orange  river  to  the  eastward, 
crossed  the  Kwathlamba  mountain,  the  ‘  'Drakenberg”  of  the 
Dutch,  and  came  down  into  Natal,  hoping  to  make  that  beauti¬ 
ful  country  a  new  Netherlands,  and  there  find  rest  and  peace. 
But  in  1841  the  English  governor  of  the  Cape,  whence  they  had 
fled,  warned  them  not  to  touch  his  “allies,”  the  Amampondo. 
The  reply  of  the  Boers  was  that  they  had  nothing  to  do  with 
the  English,  and  would  protect  their  own  property  as  they  chose. 
Two  hundred  and  fifty  British  soldiers  landed  in  Natal.  The 
Boers  told  them  to  quit.  They  attacked  the  Boers  and  were 
defeated  and  blockaded  in  their  camp.  At  length  more  English 
soldiers  were  landed,  and  Natal,  after  much  fighting,  was 
declared  a  British  colony.  Some  of  the  Boers  submitted  to 
what  they  regarded  as  a  great  wrong;  but  the  larger  part  of 
them  withdrew,  some  of  them  direct  to  their  friends  on  the 
Orange  river,  and  some  northward  to  a  district  north  of  the 
Klip  river,  as  yet  the  boundary  of  Natal  in  that  direction.  But, 
in  1845,  after  three  years  of  much  effort  and  suffering  to  make 
for  themselves  a  new  and  free  home,  the  colonial  government  of 
Natal  set  up  a  new  claim  in  that  direction,  pushed  the  limits  of 
the  colony  still  further  north,  and  proclaimed  the  Buffalo  river 
the  northern  boundary  of  Natal;  thus  once  more  attempting 
to  subject  the  Boers  to  British  rule.  Yet,  now  again,  more  than 
ever,  exasperated  by  what  they  regarded  as  continued  persecu¬ 
tion,  most  of  the  Boers,  after  resisting  for  a  time,  migrated  in 
1845  and  later  to  the  Vaal  country,  where,  eventually,  with  others 
from  the  Free  State,  they  organized  the  Transvaal  republic. 

Some  few  years  later,  Sir  George  Grey,  governor  of  Cape 
Colony,  began  to  urge  the  idea  of  a  general  union  of  all  South 
African  states,  colonial,  free,  and  native,  under  the  British 
crown.  His  proposition  took  well  with  many  at  the  Cape,  and 
seemed  to  be  regarded  with  favor  at  Downing  street.  But  the 


12 


governor’s  policy  was  disallowed  by  Lord  Derby,  and  Sir  George 
was  ordered  to  resign  and  return  home.  Some  years  later  this 
idea  was  revived  by  the  British  government  as  represented  by 
its  colonial  secretary,  Lord  Carnarvon,  who,  in  1875,  took  upon 
himself  to  ask  the  governor  of  the  Cape  to  have  the  colonists 
make  arrangements  for  the  establishment  of  such  a  universal 
South  African  confederacy.  But  the  Cape  legislature,  and 
especially  the  older  colonists,  rejected  Lord  Carnarvon’s  pro¬ 
posal,  as  did  the  two  Dutch  republics,  being,  as  they  were,  not 
at  all  inclined  to  come  again  under  British  rule.  Lord  Carnar¬ 
von  then  sent  out  the  historian  Froude,  to  make  speeches  from 
town  to  town  on  the  confederation  scheme.  The  colonists  dis¬ 
liked  this  interference  of  the  British  with  their  affairs,  and  a 
second  attempt  at  a  conference,  in  1876,  was  a  failure.  Only 
Natal  would  consent  to  have  part  and  lot  with  all  the  other 
provinces.  The  Transvaal  Free  State,  least  of  all,  would  con¬ 
sent  to  merge  its  political  life  in  the  proposed  imperial  project. 
The  Orange  Free  State  was  equally  opposed  to  it.  Meantime, 
the  correspondence  of  Sir  Henry  Berkly,  governor  of  Cape 
Colony,  with  his  secretary  of  state  in  London,  betrayed  a 
vehement  prejudice,  a  restless,  fault-finding,  and  tale-bearing 
spirit,  against  the  Transvaal  government.  Everything  they 
did,  and  things  they  never  did,  were  made  grounds  of  censure 
and  construed  in  the  worst  possible  light.  Things  done  by  the 
British  government,  and  by  all  other  governments,  in  respect 
to  captives  in  war,  things  done  by  the  United  States,  and  other 
states,  in  respect  to  convicts  and  tramps,  being  done  by  the 
Boers,  were  represented  to  the  home  government  in  England 
by  Governor  Berkly  of  the  Cape  Colony,  as  amounting  to  “a 
system  of  quasi  slavery,  and  in  a  direct  conflict  with  the  con¬ 
vention  of  1852,”  by  reason  of  which  the  Transvaal  republic 
had  forfeited  its  right  to  political  existence.  Moreover,  for  a 
long  time  the  English  had  been  jealous  of  the  Boers’  influence 
over  the  Zulu  king,  Ketch wayo  (Cetewayo),  and  his  realm — a 
realm  which  the  former  were  evidently  now  eager  to  acquire. 
A  state  of  temporary,  internal  confusion  having  now  befallen 
the  counsels  of  the  Transvaal  government,  an  English  coterie 


13 


of  the  gold  field  adventurers  thought  this  a  good  time  to  raise 
the  cry  of  impending  public  ruin,  such  as  could  be  averted  only 
by  a  revolution.  Grossly  distorted  facts,  and  utterly  false 
reports  were  sent  to  Cape  Town,  1,500  miles  away,  there  to 
feed  the  policy  of  supplanting  the  Transvaal  government,  and 
from  the  Cape  to  England,  for  the  same  purpose;  the  Cape  gov¬ 
ernor  writing  to  Lord  Carnarvon  that,  in  his  opinion,  “the 
Transvaal  republic  should  be  united  with  the  British  colonies,” 
and  that  it  would  no  longer  be  expedient  to  cooperate  with  the 
government  “as  a  separate  state.”  Accordingly,  Sir  Theophi- 
lus  Shepstone  of  Natal,  being  now  in  England,  was  appointed 
special  commissioner  to  the  Transvaal,  “with  large  discretion¬ 
ary  powers  to  act  in  such  manner  as  he  may  deem  in  accord¬ 
ance  with  the  British  interests,  and  with  the  general  policy  of 
Her  Majesty’s  government.”  A  writ  of  annexation,  to  be 
served  by  him  on  an  independent  free  state,  some  six  months 
later,  was  that  day  put  in  his  pocket  in  Downing  street. 

Of  this  Downing  street  decree,  the  40,000  Dutch  farmers, 
whom  it  specially  concerned,  were  for  the  present,  and  for  long, 
kept  in  perfect  ignorance.  Sir  Theophilus  and  a  staff  of  Eng¬ 
lish  officials,  escorted  by  a  score  of  Natal  mounted  police, 
arrived  at  Pretoria,  the  capital  of  the  Transvaal  republic,  Janu¬ 
ary  22,  1877.  There  Sir  Theophilus  quietly  sat  until  the  twelfth 
of  April,  when  he  produced  Queen  Victoria’s  royal  commission, 
dated  Balmoral,  October  9,  1876,  and  thereupon  issued  his 
proclamation,  “That  the  territory  heretofore  known  as  the 
South  African  republic  shall  be,  and  shall  be  taken  to  be,  Brit¬ 
ish  territory.”  The  president  of  the  republic  protested;  the 
Volksraad  protested;  the  executive  council  protested.  Presi¬ 
dent  Kruger  had  visited  England  and  could  not  think  it  possi¬ 
ble  that  the  British  government  would  sanction  the  shedding  of 
blood  for  such  a  purpose  as  destroying  a  free  state  of  Euro¬ 
peans  by  descent,  race,  language,  and  religion,  whose  integrity 
the  Queen  had,  twenty-five  years  before,  solemnly  promised  to 
protect.  Sir  T.  Shepstone,  special  commissioner  and  annexer, 
now  became  administrator  or  actual  governor  of  the  Transvaal. 
But  among  the  Boers  the  opposition  to  the  high-handed  act  he 


had  perpetrated  became  more  and  more  bitter  the  wider  and 
longer  it  was  known.  Two  special  delegates  were  sent  to 
remonstrate  with  Her  Majesty’s  government  in  London,  but  in 
vain.  According  to  the  instruction  she  gave  her  special  com¬ 
missioner,  Shepstone,  the  annexation  was  to  be  provisional, 
temporary.  Now  these  delegates  are  told  it  is  absolute,  final. 
The  annexation  was  to  be  conditioned,  in  a  measure,  upon  the 
pleasure  of  the  people.  The  40,000  Dutchmen,  over  whom  Sir 
Theophilus  was  ruling  in  1877,  were  resolutely  opposed  to  him 
and  his  policy.  Out  of  8,000  electors,  or  enfranchised  burghers, 
6,591  signed  a  memorial  against  being  annexed  to  the  British 
empire,  and  praying  the  Queen  that  their  country’s  independ¬ 
ence  might  be  restored;  yet  all  in  vain. 

The  spirit  of  these  40,000  Boers  at  the  time  of  which  we 
speak,  as  their  spirit  to-day,  when  their  number  is  greatly 
increased  and  similar  dangers  threaten  them,  may  be  seen  in 
the  oath  of  mutual  allegiance,  which  a  goodly  number  of  their 
representative  men  took  at  the  time,  at  the  Wonderfontein 
meeting  in  the  Transvaal,  as  follows: — 

“In  the  presence  of  Almighty  God,  the  searcher  of  hearts,  and  praying 
for  His  gracious  assistance  and  mercy,  we,  burghers  of  the  South  African 
republic,  have  solemnly  agreed,  for  us,  and  for  our  children,  to  unite  in  a 
holy  covenant,  which  we  confirm  with  a  solemn  oath.  It  is  now  forty  years 
since  our  fathers  left  the  Cape  Colony  to  become  a  free  and  independent 
people.  These  forty  years  have  been  forty  years  of  sorrow  and  suffering. 
We  have  founded  Natal,  the  Orange  Free  State,  and  the  South  African 
Republic,  and  three  times  has  the  English  government  trampled  on  our 
liberty;  and  our  flag,  baptized  with  the  blood  and  tears  of  our  fathers,  has 
been  pulled  down.  As  by  a  thief  in  the  night  has  our  free  republic  been 
stolen  from  us.  We  cannot  suffer  this,  and  we  may  not.  It  is  the  will  of 
God  that  the  unity  of  our  fathers  and  our  love  to  our  children  should  oblige 
us  to  deliver  unto  our  children,  unblemished,  the  heritage  of  our  fathers. 
It  is  for  this  reason  that  we  here  unite,  and  give  each  other  the  hand  as 
men  and  brethren,  solemnly  promising  to  be  faithful  to  our  country  and 
people,  and,  looking  unto  God,  to  work  together  unto  death  for  the  restora¬ 
tion  of  the  liberty  of  our  republic.  So  truly  help  us,  God  Almighty.” 

This  oath  struck  most  people  as  the  oath  of  men  deserving  to 
be  respected.  The  best,  and,  indeed,  the  general  opinion  in 
America  was,  that  “the  British  hadn’t  a  shadow  of  reason  for 


15 


making  war  upon  the  Transvaal.”  The  sympathy  of  Europe 
was  with  the  Boers.  Many  were  the  petitions  presented  to  the 
British  government — one  from  Utrecht  signed  by  some  5,000 
Hollanders,  including  all  the  leading  men  of  the  country.  “  urg¬ 
ing  that  the  right  of  the  Boers  be  respected  in  accordance  with 
their  own  demand” ;  yet  all  to  no  purpose.  British  troops  were 
poured  into  the  Transvaal;  they  were  promptly  met  by  men 
who  knew  how  to  fight,  and  knew  that  they  had  a  just  cause. 
In  battle  after  battle  they  were  beaten.  The  last  place  where 
the  English  locked  horns  with  the  Dutch  was  at  Majuba  Hill, 
where  less  than  150  Dutchmen  stormed  a  mountain  peak  held 
by  400  British  troops,  some  say  700,  and  dislodged  them,  inflict¬ 
ing  upon  them  a  most  crushing  and  humiliating  defeat.  Hos¬ 
tilities  were  now  suspended,  and  the  army,  or  what  there  was 
left  of  it,  was  withdrawn.  Just  then  it  was  that  the  Gladstone 
government  of  Great  Britain  came  in,  which  virtually  admitted 
that  the  Boers  had  been  right  throughout,  and  agreed  to  a  treaty 
of  peace,  the  result  of  two  conventions,  one  in  1881,  and  another 
in  1884,  when  virtual  independence  was  restored  to  the  Trans¬ 
vaal,  and  the  Boers  obtained  about  all  they  asked. 

Not  long  after  this,  i.  e.,  in  1886,  the  vast  gold  discoveries  in 
the  Transvaal  began  to  draw  to  that  country  a  swarm  of  adven¬ 
turers,  especially  from  England.  The  Boers,  from  the  first, 
very  naturally  had  a  dread  of  the  political  consequence  of  this 
influx.  Nor  was  it  long  before  the  miners  began  to  complain 
of  the  government  of  the  land  into  which  their  greed  for  gold 
had  brought  them,  and  to  demand  equal  rights  with  the  native 
Boer  population,  though  they  had  taken  no  oath  of  allegiance  to 
the  government  under  which  they  were  living.  The  Boers 
were  always  inclined  to  be  jealous  of  strangers,  especially  of  the 
English,  and  who  will  deny  that  they  long  had  good  reason 
for  being  so?  And,  especially  now,  considering  the  fact  that 
the  miners  were,  for  the  most  part,  notoriously  and  openly 
favorable  to  British  rule  in  preference  to  Boer,  and  that  the 
number  of  the  miners  soon  began  to  exceed  that  of  the  male 
adult  Boer  population,  who  can  wonder  that  the  latter  were  in  no 
haste  to  concede  a  power  which  might  soon  lead  to  their  own 


i6 


overthrow?  Even  at  Johannesburg,  where  the  outrageous 
Jameson  raid  eventually  came  to  a  most  abrupt  and  inglorious 
end,  President  Kruger,  in  March,  1890,  was  clamored  down  by 
a  crowd  of  miners  whom  he  tried  to  address  in  regard  to  their 
alleged  grievances,  and  who  proceeded  to  tear  down  the  flag  of 
the  republic  and  to  hoist  the  English  flag  instead.  What  wonder 
then  that  the  Boers  declined  to  grant  equal  suffrage  to  unnatur¬ 
alized  foreigners,  or  that  they  were  in  no  hurry  to  naturalize 
those  they  deemed  hostile  to  their  hard-earned  independence? 

But  the  outcry  against  oppression  and  the  demand  for  reform, 
which  the  outlanders  kept  up  and  urged  on,  encouraged  as  they 
evidently  were  by  ambitious  and  designing  men  outside  of 
Transvaal  limits,  such  as  Jameson  and  Cecil  Rhodes,  at  length 
brought  on  the  raid,  which  would,  doubtless,  have  culminated 
in  a  revolution  had  it  not  been  so  quickly  and  effectually  dis¬ 
covered  and  squelched  by  Kruger  and  his  loyal  supporters. 
But  of  all  this  we  have  here  and  now  neither  time  nor  need  to 
speak.  The  general  facts  and  the  general  opinion  of  the  wide 
world  in  respect  to  that  iniquitous  plot,  are  too  fresh  in  the 
mind  of  the  thoughtful  and  observing  to  require  any  extended 
rehearsal  here.  But  though  the  suppression  of  the  deep  laid 
plot  was  speedy  and  complete,  yet  the  complaints  and  demands 
of  the  outlanders  and  their  abettors  were  only  smothered  for  a 
time,  soon  to  break  out,  as  now,  in  a  most  deplorable  flame  of 
overt  hostility  and  violence. 

I  will  not  stop  here  to  waste  time  or  words  about  who  began 
the  war — only  to  observe,  in  passing,  that  the  question,  as 
another  has  said,  is  not  so  much  who  struck  the  first  blow,  as 
who  caused  the  first,  or  any  other  to  be  struck  at  all  ? 

To  me  the  British  have  seemed  all  along  both  unreasonable 
in  their  demands  and  revolutionary  alike  in  spirit  and  action. 
That  they  can  establish  any  present  just  claim  to  suzerainty 
over  the  Transvaal  is  hard  to  make  out.  For  myself,  I  do  not 
believe  they  can.  An  able,  well-posted  writer,  with  the  “Green 
Book  ”  of  the  republic  in  his  possession,  and  with  the  treaty  of 
1881  and  that  of  1884  before  him,  has  said:  “The  fact  is  that 
England  has  no  right,  in  any  way,  shape,  or  manner,  to  demand 


17 


or  even  to  suggest  a  modification  of  the  oath  of  allegiance  of  a 
foreigner  who  desires  to  become  a  citizen  of  the  republic  or 
of  any  state.  The  claim  is  made  falsely  that  the  treaty  between 
Great  Britain  and  the  republic,  made  in  1881  and  superseded  by 
the  convention  of  London  in  1884,  gave  to  Great  Britain  the 
right  to  thus  suggest  and  interfere  with  the  autonomy  of  the 
republic.  All  that  the  convention  of  1881  gave  to  Great  Britain 
in  this  respect  was  the  suzerainty  over  the  foreign  or  outside 
relations  of  the  republic.  And  even  this  treaty  of  1881  was  not 
ratified  by  the  congress  of  the  republic.  They  refused  to  admit 
suzerainty,  and  sent  a  commission  of  three,  including  Kruger 
and  Joubert,  to  London  and  it  was  stricken  from  the  treaty.  A 
new  treaty,  called  ‘  The  Treaty  of  the  Convention  of  1884,’  was 
agreed  upon  by  the  great  British  empire,  omitting  all  claim  to 
suzerainty,  but  retaining  simply  the  right  to  pass  upon,  approve, 
or  disapprove  all  treaties  with  foreign  powers  that  had  been 
made  by  the  republic.” 

But  in  any  case  the  claim  is  far  from  sufficient  to  justify  a  war 
in  its  support.  The  question  might  have  been  easily  settled  by 
arbitration  had  there  been  any  desire  on  the  part  of  the  English 
to  do  so.  Indeed,  all  the  points  in  dispute  might  have  been 
thus  easily  settled  had  there  been  a  desire  for  it.  Nor  should  it 
be  forgotten  that  this  mode  of  settlement  was  the  first  thing 
named  in  Kruger’s  ultimatum. 

But,  whatever  might  be  said  or  done  about  suzerainty,  nothing 
can  be  plainer  than  that  according  to  the  treaty  of  1884  the 
English  had  no  shadow  of  a  right  to  intermeddle  in  the  Boers’ 
own  internal  home  affairs,  whether  of  constitution,  law,  or 
government,  nor,  yet  again,  can  anything  be  plainer  than  that 
she  has  violated  her  treaty  with  the  Transvaal  by  a  repeated, 
persistent,  most  officious  and  offensive  interference  of  this  kind. 
On  the  pretext  that  the  times  have  changed,  the  British  have 
thrown  that  treaty  to  the  winds  and  practically  come  in  with  a 
claim  of  right  to  meddle  or  interfere  with  the  institutions,  laws, 
government  of  the  republic  in  almost  any  and  every  way  they 
please.  Would  they  dare  attempt  such  an  interference  with  the 
United  States,  France,  Germany,  Russia?  Or  should  they 


i8 

attempt  it  who  believes  it  would  be  for  a  moment  quietly 
tolerated?  One  of  the  false,  sophistical  claims  set  up  by  those 
interested  in  revolutionizing  or  destroying  the  South  African 
republic  is,  that  the  Boers  have  broken  their  agreement  to  give 
the  outlanders  “equal  political  and  other  rights.’’  But  they 
never  agreed  to  give  them  political  rights;  “that  word  was 
interpolated  by  the  British  and  by  those  who  argue  in  their 
behalf.” 

One  of  the  most  absurd,  unrighteous  things  which  the  British 
demanded  of  Kruger  was  that  British  subjects  residing  in  the 
Transvaal  should  be  allowed  to  vote  there  and  have  a  voice  in 
all  the  rights  and  privileges  of  the  elective  franchise  in  that 
republic,  and  still  retain  their  allegiance  to  the  crown,  or  con¬ 
tinue  to  be  regular  loyal  subjects  of  the  British  government. 
Did  any  other  government  ever  make  or  ever  grant  such  a 
demand?  One  would  suppose  that  Mr.  Chamberlain  himself 
should  have  read  his  Bible  enough  to  know  that  “No  man  can 
serve  two  masters.  ” 

The  outlanders  complain  that  they  “  have  no  power  in  the 
municipal  government  of  their  town,  Johannesburg.”  And  so, 
too,  no  unnaturalized  British  subject  residing  in  our  country 
has  rightfully  any  power  in  the  government  of  any  American 
city  in  which  he  may  be  staying  and  paying  taxes. 

The  outlanders  complain  again  that  “  they  have  no  control  of 
the  education  of  the  country.”  And  why  should  they  have? 
When  they  shall  have  been  naturalized,  taken  the  oath  of 
allegiance  to  the  government  of  the  country  they  occupy,  and 
shall  have  in  all  good  faith  renounced  their  allegiance  to  the 
Queen  of  England,  it  will  be  time  enough  for  them  to  talk  of 
having  a  voice  in  the  education  of  their  newly  appointed  country. 
To  the  credit  of  the  citizens  of  the  republic  it  should  be  said 
they  have  free  schools,  though  they  are  not  under  the  control 
of  foreigners.  Germany  has  a  multitude  of  unnaturalized 
people  in  America,  but  even  though  they  pay  their  taxes  they 
are  too  wise  and  fair  to  think  of  forcing  the  German  language 
into  the  curriculum  of  our  schools,  as  the  outlanders  would  force 
the  English  into  the  Transvaal  schools.  And  again  we  ask  why 


19 


should  the  outlanders  or  the  English  back  of  them  have  control 
of  education  in  the  Transvaal?  If  the  speaker  is  not  much 
mistaken  even  the  older  of  the  English  people  themselves  know 
practically  little  or  nothing  of  free  schools  in  their  own  land, 
their  own  mother  country  having  had  none  deserving  the  name 
in  their  childhood,  if,  indeed,  it  has  any  now.  A  distinguished 
president  of  a  New  England  college  says:  “Government  grants 
for  free  common  schools  in  England  date  from  1870” — only 
thirty  years  ago.  Another  equally  good  authority  in  another 
New  England  college  says:  “  In  Great  Britain  the  elementary 
schools  are  even  now  hardly  ‘free’  in  the  American  sense  of  the 
term,  being  supported  in  part  by  school  fees  in  addition  to  the 
local  rates  and  government  grants.”  And  then,  too,  further¬ 
more,  let  it  be  noted  in  passing  that  in  the  opinion  of  the  speaker 
a  change  of  this  kind,  as  well  as  many  others  which  England 
seems  bound  to  have  made  in  the  Transvaal,  could  be  made,  if 
made  at  all,  a  good  deal  better  and  cheaper  by  sending  out 
teachers  and  preachers  than  by  sending  soldiers,  bullets,  and 
bayonets. 

As  to  the  complaint  of  the  outlanders  about  having  to  pay  a 
high  price  for  dynamite,  and  their  demand  that  the  tariff  on  it 
be  reduced  or  taken  off,  it  is  enough  to  say  that  “more  is  charged 
for  it  by  the  South  African  chartered  company  at  the  Kimberley 
mines  than  is  charged  in  Johannesburg,  many  miles  further 
inland,  with  more  expensive  transportation  and  including  the 
Transvaal  tax.” 

In  respect  to  the  demand  which  the  English  made  upon 
President  Kruger  that  he  modify  his  laws  of  naturalization  and 
the  oath  of  allegiance,  the  president  very  rightly  replied  that 
to  do  this  to  the  extent  recpiired  “would  be  to  destroy  my 
country.”  Nor  can  any  honest,  well-informed,  right-minded 
man  wonder  that  he  has  not  been  in  a  hurry  to  make  the  changes 
in  respect  to  naturalization,  the  franchise  and  kindred  things, 
which  the  outlanders  demand,  when  we  remember  that  many  of 
these  miners  would  make  anything  but  desirable  citizens.  While 
it  is  true  that  many  of  them  are  good,  honest,  worthy  men,  it  is 
also  equally  true  that  great  numbers  of  them  were  from  among 


20 


the  worst  of  classes  in  the  lands  from  which  they  came,  and 
have  made  no  change  for  the  better  at  the  mines.  That  the 
president  of  the  republic  and  the  Boers  generally  “do  not  desire 
to  add  to  their  number  the  denizens  of  a  mining  camp  like 
Johannesburg,  proprietors  of  liquor  saloons  and  brothels,  for 
instance,  is  to  the  credit  of  the  citizens  of  the  republic.”  And 
when  we  of  America  remember  that  for  several  generations  our 
own  Pilgrim  and  Puritan  fathers  limited  the  privileges  of  the 
elective  franchise  to  a  certain  ecclesiastical  standing,  allowing 
only  church  members  of  a  certain  kind  to  vote,  even  in  civil  or 
state  affairs,  though  they  had  nothing  of  a  hoodlum  class  to 
contend  with,  it  would  seem  becoming  in  us  not  to  be  in  a  hurry 
to  cast  the  first  stone  at  the  Boers,  or  say  much  about  their 
being  bigoted.  Nor  should  the  English  themselves  be  in  any 
hurry  of  this  kind.  “If  a  new  constitution  should  ever  be 
adopted  in  the  Transvaal,  providing  for  a  separation  of  church 
and  state,  it  would  be  superior  to  the  present  constitution  of  the 
great  British  empire.” 

Again,  finally,  the  claim  is  made  that  the  Transvaal  “taxes 
are  unequally  levied.  ”  But  I  have  good  reason  and  the  best  of 
authority  for  saying  that  the  claim  is  “  absolutely  false;  all  the 
people  are  taxed  alike.”  During  the  last  year  the  foreigners 
have  taken  out  of  that  country  no  less  than  $100,000,000  of  gold, 
upon  which  the  corporations  which  manage  the  mines  have 
paid  dividends  to  their  stockholders  varying  from  sixty  to  one 
hundred  per  cent  per  annum ;  while  the  taxes  which  the  repub¬ 
lic  puts  on  the  profits  of  the  mines  amount  to  only  two  and  a 
half  per  cent,  though  the  tax  which  the  English  colony,  Canada, 
imposes  upon  the  profits  of  her  mines  amounts  to  no  less  than 
ten  per  cent. 

As  to  a  personal  tax:  According  to  an  English  authority, 
Statham,  in  his  book  on  “  South  African  States,”  the  personal 
tax  on  any  one  in  the  Transvaal,  rich  or  poor,  does  not,  prob¬ 
ably,  amount  to  more  than  twenty-five  dollars  per  year — all  of 
which  shows  how  utterly  absurd  is  the  outlanders’  outcry  about 
taxes. 

Such  as  these  are  the  complaints  and  demands  which  the  out- 


landers  and  their  English  backers  bring  against  the  Boers  in 
the  Transvaal ;  and  such  are  some  of  the  thoughts  and  facts 
which  go  to  show  how  some  of  their  complaints  and  demands 
are  made  directly  in  face  of  that  most  solemn  treaty  which  the 
British  government  negotiated  with  the  Transvaal  republic  in 
1884;  while  other  of  their  complaints  and  demands  are  simply 
false,  groundless,  absurd. 

The  conclusion,  then,  to  which  the  speaker  is  forced  to  come, 
in  view  of  this  whole  subject,  is,  that  the  war  now  raging  between 
the  Boer  and  the  Briton  in  South  Africa  is  not  only  most 
deplorable,  cruel,  bitter,  but  also  alike  most  devastating  and 
needless,  and  might  have  been  happily  averted  by  arbitration, 
had  there  been  any  real  desire  on  the  part  of  the  English  to 
have  the  controversy  adjusted  and  settled  in  that  way. 


SUPPLEMENTARY. 


MR.  GROUT  ANSWERS  SOME  OF  THE  POINTS  RAISED  BY  THE 
DISCUSSION  IN  THE  CLUB. 


Statement:  “  Boers  have  a  system  of  virtual  slavery  and  want 
to  make  slavery  the  corner  stone  of  their  republic.” 

Answer:  There  is  no  “  virtual  slavery  ”  in  the  Transvaal,  and 
in  all  my  residence  in  South  Africa,  or  my  reading  since,  I  have 
never  heard  or  seen  the  charge  made,  even  by  the  worst  ene¬ 
mies  of  the  Boers,  in  a  way  that  meant  anything  definite. 
Slavery  is  forbidden  by  the  fundamental  law  of  the  land  and  has 
been  ever  since  the  Sand  River  convention.  “  Black  men  ”  are 
excluded  from  the  franchise,  as  they  are  also  in  Natal  and  other 
British  colonies.  The  only  servitude  that  exists  is  in  punish¬ 
ment  for  crime  as  in  this  and  other  countries,  and  it  is  worse  in 
many  of  our  southern  states,  under  their  convict  lease  system, 
than  anywhere  in  the  Dutch  republic.  The  natives  are  taxed, 
as  they  are  in  Natal  and  other  English  colonies;  and  if  they 
have  no  money  they  must  work  out  their  taxes.  But  it  is  a 
wage  system.  As  to  slavery,  the  ownership  in  man,  the  right 
to  buy  and  sell  human  flesh — it  absolutely  doesn’t  exist. 

One  of  the  articles  of  the  convention  of  1884  reads:  “All 
inhabitants  (i.  e.,  blacks  and  whites  alike)  of  the  Transvaal  shall 
have  free  access  to  the  courts  of  justice  for  the  protection  and 
defense  of  their  rights.  ”  Slavery  can’t  exist  under  such  a  law, 
which  is  just  the  same,  regarding  aliens  also,  as  in  the  United 
States. 

Statement:  “  The  Boer  republic  is  an  oligarchy.” 

Answer:  How  can  it  be  called  an  “oligarchy”  when  every 
one  of  the  citizens,  from  boys  of  sixteen  and  upward,  is  entitled 
to  vote  and  does  vote  ? 

Statement:  “  The  Boers  are  narrow  and  bigoted.” 

Answer:  It  is  true  that  they  have  an  established  church,  the 


23 


Dutch  Reformed,  just  as  England  has  in  the  Episcopal  church. 
But  there  is  the  widest  tolerance  for  all  other  faiths.  To  illus¬ 
trate:  Rev.  Dr.  Lindley,  a  missionary  under  the  American 
Board  and  himself  a  Presbyterian,  was  employed  as  pastor, 
teacher  and  preacher  among  the  Boers  of  the  Transvaal  for  five 
or  six  years  and  traveled  through  the  country,  holding  services, 
conducting  funerals,  performing  marriage  ceremonies,  etc. 
After  his  return  to  his  mission  in  Natal  he  again  crossed  the 
mountains  and  made  a  tour  through  the  country,  giving  sermons 
in  all  the  churches.  On  one  occasion  he  baptized  five  hundred 
children,  and  President  Kruger  was  one  of  them.  Many  other 
teachers  and  preachers  of  other  Christian  denominations  have 
done  good  service  and  been  accepted  into  full  fellowship  as  fel¬ 
low  laborers  in  Christianity.  Previous  to  this  present  war 
the  Methodists  had  a  large  and  flourishing  mission  among 
the  natives  in  the  Transvaal.  Ten  years  ago  the  Berlin  Mis¬ 
sionary  Society  had  in  the  Transvaal  twenty-three  stations, 
with  five  thousand  church  members,  and  at  that  time  there  were 
about  twenty-five  thousand  native  Christians  in  the  Transvaal. 
The  Swiss  had  a  flourishing  mission  in  the  state.  The  Ameri¬ 
can  Board  had  an  American  (Congregational)  missionary  and 
several  native  assistants  at  work  among  the  natives  in  Johannes¬ 
burg.  The  wife  of  one  of  the  pastors  in  Pretoria  is  the 
daughter  of  the  late  Dr.  Josiah  Tyler  and  a  granddaughter  of 
the  late  Dr.  Bennett  Tyler  of  Connecticut.  The  famous  Salva¬ 
tion  Army  has  had  workers  formerly,  if  not  now,  in  the  Trans¬ 
vaal. 

The  “Boer  Farm  Mission  Enterprise,”  in  regions  n'ot  far 
distant  from  where  the  war  is  now  raging,  which  had  for  its 
object  the  introduction  of  Christian  life  into  the  kraals  of  the 
natives,  proves  and  illustrates  the  real  practical  interest  some 
of  the  Boers  have,  of  late  years,  been  taking  in  the  religious 
well-being  of  the  natives  around  them.  Their  Farm  missions, 
of  which  there  are  several  in  the  upper  part  of  Natal,  or  were  a 
few  years  ago,  usually  comprise  each  from  five  to  ten  thousand 
acres  of  land  and  prove  a  great  blessing  to  both  races,  the  black 
and  white,  and  help  also  to  afford  a  forcible  comment  on  the 


24 


charge,  “  The  Boers  are  narrow  and  bigoted  and  want  to  make 
slavery  the  corner  stone  of  their  republic.”* 

Statement:  “The  judiciary  is  not  independent.  Thesupreme 
court  is  subject  to  instant  removal  by  the  president  or  upper 
house  of  the  Raad. 

Answer:  My  information  is  not  sufficient  to  say  exactly  what 
the  fact  about  this  is.  But  my  idea  is  that  the  procedure  is 
very  similar  to  our  impeachment,  except  that  it  may  be  per¬ 
formed  there  by  the  executive.  But  the  upper  house,  like  our 
senate,  is  the  deciding  tribunal.  But,  however  this  may  be,  it 
is  the  government  of  law,  and  whatever  is  done,  is  done,  not  by 
arbitrary  power,  but  under  the  constitution  and  the  laws  of  the 
land,  as  clearly  and  precisely  defined  as  anywhere  in  the  world. 
And  in  a  general  way  their  laws  and  institutions  are  modeled 
after  those  of  the  United  States,  and  in  my  experience  with 
them  I  found  that  the  one  people  of  the  earth  they  admired, 
and  whose  example  they  desired  to  follow,  was  the  American 
people. 

*  One  of  the  desires  of  the  Dutch  when  they  came  to  build  a  fort  and 
plant  a  garden  at  the  Cape  was,  that  in  this  way  the  religious  well-being  of 
the  aborigines  might  be  promoted — “that  many  souls  of  the  natives  might 
be  brought  to  a  knowledge  of  religion  and  saved  to  God.”  Some  few  years 
ago  that  “  desire”  came  very  distinctly  to  the  front  among  the  Boers  in  the 
northern  parts  of  Natal,  where  a  revival  of  interest  in  the  spiritual  welfare 
of  the  natives  was  very  marked  and  happy.  Some  of  the  farmers  not  only 
warmly  approved  of  mission  work  in  their  behalf,  but  encouraged  their  own 
young  people  to  engage  in  it.  Native  evangelists  coming  from  other  quarters 
to  labor  there,  sometimes — by  invitation — held  their  meetings  in  the  houses 
of  the  Boers.  The  pastor  of  the  Dutch  church  in  Greytown  gave  the  work 
every  possible  encouragement.  The  Dutch  farmers  themselves  took  a 
warm,  active,  personal  part  in  it.  On  one  occasion  a  missionaiy  of  the 
Scotch  Free  church,  Rev.  James  Scott,  was  called  in  to  assist  at  the  baptiz¬ 
ing  of  about  a  hundred  natives  who  with  God’s  blessing  had  been  converted 
by  the  Boers. 


